Date   

Re: Whats and Chrysler Trucks

Russ Strodtz <sheridan@...>
 

A couple of things to mention. As I read these posts I get the impression
that there is a general opinion that "trucks" were purchased from one
vendor, all assembled and ready to go. While for some specialty uses,
(passenger cars, tenders), companies like LFM, (Locomotive Finished
Material), did sell full built up trucks, in most cases freight cars got
trucks that built up at the point of construction. The parts may have come
from a number of vendors and in some cases may have been purchased by the
Railroad in order to get a volume discount.

Since we were discussing the Chrysler truck here is an example:

CB&Q 23000-23099 built at Havelock 1955 with:
FR-5E Chrysler, Symington-Gould Design truck, CB&Q truck #94.
Sideframes and most other parts from Symington-Gould
Bearings from Magnus Metal
Wedges from Cliff. Jackson Forging
Snubbers were from Houdaillee-H Co.
Unit wear plate from Unit Truck Co.
Connecting lever from Schaefer
Side bearings from Standard Car Truck
Spring layout followed AAR Plate D-37-1951 (Havelock would buy springs in
bulk and use where needed)

Since these were rather oddball trucks most of the stuff came from
Symington-Gould. With a more common design there would be much more mixing
of parts.
Interesting to note that for this series of cars no axles or wheels were
specified. Havelock must have just used what was on hand.

I found a photo album for this group called "Trucks". Put two images of the
trucks mentioned in there. Guess the Moderator has to approve them but
that's
out of my control.

Russ

Another important point to be made in connection with this
discussion: the idea that modelers sometimes create, that "T-section"
or "Andrews" describes a specific truck, is very wrong. The Bettendorf
Axle Company (as it then was) was a pioneer of the T-section sideframe,
but American Steel Foundries outsold them with a very similar-looking
design, and several other truck makers offered that sideframe also.
There were a whole bunch of Andrews designs, many significantly
different in appearance from the familiar truck used under USRA cars,
with their distinctive short journal retainer bars. Mr. Hendrickson has
published a couple of articles on trucks; for those with access to even
a few issues of the Cyclopedia, or Train Shed reprints, there is much
to look at and learn from about the products of the various truck
producers.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


Re: Whats a 1913 "Barber" Truck?

Bob Karig <karig@...>
 

Another important point to be made in connection with this
discussion: the idea that modelers sometimes create, that "T-section"
or "Andrews" describes a specific truck, is very wrong.

Yes, the terms "T-Section" or "L-Section" or "U-Section" (Channel-Section) were used to describe the cross-section, typically of both the tension and compression members, of the side frame. Bettendorf is famous for its early "T-Section" truck with cast-in journal boxes. Andrews trucks were noted for their separable journal boxes, but many manufacturers also produced trucks with separable journal boxes, notably Gould. However, there are distinctive features that allow you to tell these side frames apart.

American Steel Foundries first Andrews trucks were the "L-Section" variety. In the L-Section Andrews truck, the tie strap wrapped under the side frame. Kadee's Andrews trucks model this variety. They were replaced with the "T-Section" with the short tie strap attached to the tension member around 1912. These was followed by the "U-Section" Andrews design, which was adopted by the U.S.R.A., and which is widely modeled. To my knowledge, no one has produced a model of the Andrews T-Section truck, much the pity, since that's what the O&W used.

Barber marketed a double action truck in the 1910's and 20's with a distinctive side frame, unlike any of the Andrews side frames. In its marketing literature, Standard Car Truck Company (SCT) shows its lateral motion device with a number of other manufacturers' side frames, but it also markets its double action truck with this distinctive side frame. These appear in the CBC's of the period.

For those with the 1922 CBC, the SCT ads and pictures of the Barber Double Action truck, as used by the Erie, are seen on pages 608 and 609.

SCT first introduced this side frame with its Barber side bearing truck during the first decade of the 20th century. (See 1912 Car Builders Dictionary, p.562)

Bob


Re: Whats a 1913 "Barber" Truck?

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Bob Karig wrote:
Barber made a distinctive set of "T-Section" side frames with separable journal boxes for both 50-ton and 70-ton cars . . .
and Richard Hendrickson replied:
These were early Andrews trucks, and the Standard Car Truck Co. was not the only truck manufacturer who made them. The Andrews design came in a variety of configurations, but its distinctive feature was one piece cast side frames into which individual journal boxes were bolted, with steel retainer bars locating the bottoms of the journal boxes relative to the side frame.
Another important point to be made in connection with this discussion: the idea that modelers sometimes create, that "T-section" or "Andrews" describes a specific truck, is very wrong. The Bettendorf Axle Company (as it then was) was a pioneer of the T-section sideframe, but American Steel Foundries outsold them with a very similar-looking design, and several other truck makers offered that sideframe also. There were a whole bunch of Andrews designs, many significantly different in appearance from the familiar truck used under USRA cars, with their distinctive short journal retainer bars. Mr. Hendrickson has published a couple of articles on trucks; for those with access to even a few issues of the Cyclopedia, or Train Shed reprints, there is much to look at and learn from about the products of the various truck producers.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


Re: ARA Safety Appliance and LD LMT Info: Was "Coal Car Book"

Bob Karig <karig@...>
 

This note was modified in 1927 with an extension to January, 1929. This was
the FINAL date for full compliance on equipment offered in interchange.
Actually, there is another twist to this issue.

There obviously were some compliance issues, because, in a supplement to the 1932 Code of Rules, the following paragraph was added to Rule 3, which governs which cars can be accepted in interchange: Section (s) "(5) Stenciling: Load limit markings, as provided in Rule 30, required on all cars except tank cars and live poultry cars effective January 1, 1933. From owners."

Apparently, they had to put the hammer down.

The presentation of this information, i.e., the familiar,
CAPY
LD LMT
LT WT
was made A.R.A. Standard in 1926.

The addition to Interchange Rule No. 3 was made effective August 1, 1933.
This was an American Railway Association requirement as the ARA did not become
the AAR until October 12, 1934. Small nit yes, but historically accurate.
Yes, it was an A.R.A. requirement when passed, but after 1934, it became an A.A.R. requirement.

Bob


Re: ACL/SAL Covered Hoppers on Wabash

Allen Rueter
 

I got a yard log for Martinsburg, MO 1958, (Wabash)

Digging thru the archives I see a fair amount of fertilizer came
from Florida.

Any one have an idea as to what make of LO (I assume) these are?
I'm really more interested what would be appropriate for 1950.

The following hoppers appear,
Apr 29
ACL | 87156 | LH | Fertz | Kersting & Fennewald
ACL | 87025 | LH | Fertz | Kersting & Fennewald

Apr 30
ACL | 87156 | EH | Mty | Pierce Fla.
ACL | 87025 | EH | Mty | Pierce Fla.

May 12
SAL | 7040 | EH | Mty | Pierce Fla.
SAL | 8208 | LH | Fertz | Kersting & Fennewald < ACF 70T ?

May 14
SAL | 8208 | EH | Mty | Pierce Fla.

May 21
ACL | 87749 | EH | Mty | Pierce Fla.
ACL | 87790 | LH | Fertz | Kersting & Fennewald

May 22
ACL | 87790 | EH | Mty | Pierce Fla.

May 29
SAL | 30021 | LH | Fertz | Kersting & Fennewald
SAL | 30156 | LH | Fertz | Kersting & Fennewald

Jul 1
ACL | 87906 | EH | Mty | Pierce Fla.

Jul 7
SAL | 8096 | EH | Mty | Pierce Fla.

Sept 26
ACL | 87786 | LH | Fertz | Kersting & Fennewald

Sept 29
ACL | 87786 | EH | Mty | Pierce Fla.

Oct 1
ACL | 87615 | LH | Fertz | Kersting & Fennewald

Oct 2
ACL | 87615 | EH | Mty | Pierce Fla.

Oct 9
ACL | 86768 | LH | Fertz | Kersting & Fennewald

Oct 10
ACL | 86768 | EH | Mty | Mulberry Fla.

Oct 28
ACL | 85404 | EH | Mty | Pierce Fla.

Nov 4
ACL | 87700 | EH | Mty | Mulberry Fla.
ACL | 87806 | LH | Fertz | Kersting & Fennewald

Allen Rueter
St. Louis MO

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Clark Propst <cepropst@...> wrote:

Tim,
I won't paint the Kadee hoppers M&StL, I'll wait. I have been
collecting some Atlas hoppers to modify with channel ends. You know what
they would look like coupled to the Kadee car? I'll have to rethink what
to do with them.
Thanks for catching my phosphorus mistake, it is of course phosphate.
I was listening to the Cubs game and must have remembered how pretty
phosphorus grenades were! The Cubs grenade wasn't pretty.
There was a fertilizer place at Emery IA. SAL or ACL (which were
black?) hoppers show up in the slides Soph took of the trolley. They
came off the M&StL.
I forgot to mention the CGW hoppers. there are a couple of them too.
They were assigned cars.
Clark Propst
CD seller


Re: RPM meet need to know................

golden1014
 

Hi Dave,

I was planning on Fri, 24 Aug and Sat, 25 Aug for St. Louis RPM.
Unfortunately that's the same week that my new job starts. We didn't
have the opporuntity to change dates.

John Golden
O'Fallon, IL


--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Ed Hawkins <hawk0621@...> wrote:


On Feb 17, 2007, at 3:59 AM, Dave Powell wrote:

Hi,
I know the St. Louis RPM meet has been canceled but what was
the date
they were planning on having it? Thanks, Dave Powell
Dave,
The meet has been in August the past three years. I've been told
it
should resume in 2008.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins




Re: Accurate STMFC freight car list

Aidrian Bridgeman-Sutton <smokeandsteam@...>
 

In many cases railroad books are done because the author and/or publisher
have a particular interest in the subject. I'm not suggesting that there is
*no* profit in the deal, but that for many authors the return can represent
an hourly rate of something representing just a few percent of the minimum
wage; to do something like this requires enthusiasm beyond simple financial
reward.

The other point to consider is that a book is limited to what was available
when it went to press and that can be some very considerable period of time
before it hits the shelves in your local store or library.

Online information can be updated more quickly if there is the time and
enthusiasm to do it. However it sometimes suffers from being widely spread
over the internet - the archives of this list, the search page old
Freightcars list, and resources located www.steamfreightcars.com are all
very useful.

You just need to be prepared to do some clicking and reading and to be
prepared to read the whole thread of any email discussions - earlier posts
may contain errors which are corrected later in the thread.

Aidrian


From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul
& Bernice Hillman


Well, maybe a list like that would turn out to be rather small, about
which model cars were very true replicas of the prototypes. But,
perhaps one (or more) of the prototype masters on this list could
produce such a book or booklet for SALE on the subject.

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.18.0/689 - Release Date: 2/15/2007
5:40 PM


Re: Whats a 1913 "Barber" Truck?

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Feb 16, 2007, at 3:55 PM, Bob Karig wrote:

Barber made a distinctive set of "T-Section" side frames with separable
journal boxes for both 50-ton and 70-ton cars. They had a gull wing
profile when viewed from the side, and the tie strap wrapped under the side
frame. The Erie used a special set with this profile under its 70-ton cars.
These were early Andrews trucks, and the Standard Car Truck Co. was not the only truck manufacturer who made them. The Andrews design came in a variety of configurations, but its distinctive feature was one piece cast side frames into which individual journal boxes were bolted, with steel retainer bars locating the bottoms of the journal boxes relative to the side frame.

Richard Hendrickson


Re: Accurate STMFC freight car list

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Feb 16, 2007, at 5:54 PM, Paul & Bernice Hillman wrote:

One case in point. I impetuosly purchased Walthers, Proto 2000 Series;

Mather 40ft Stock Car, GM&O
Mather 40ft boxcar, C&IM
Mather 40ft Boxcar, C&EI

It was late, I'd had a couple of beers, I liked the way the cars
looked and assumed that PROBABLY (?) the manufacturer had done their
prototype research duty. (Or "close" enough)
Often a risky assumption. However, the Proto 2000 line was carefully
researched from the outset. That's not to say that every model is 100%
accurate, but errors were generally minor and inadvertant. All three
of the Mather models you purchased are prototypically correct for some
point in time, but whether they're correct on your model RR depends on
the date it represents – another of the dimensions that render
producing a master list of "correct" models difficult.

Also, F&C models at least LOOK very good and seem to have followed
deep prototype research?
Uh, I wouldn't call F&C's prototype research "deep." Many of their
models are essentially correct, but the prototype data that accompanies
them is often less than adequate and sometimes just plain wrong
(unlike, for example, the prototype data in Westerfield's kits, which
is typically voluminous and notably free of errors).

Richard Hendrickson


Re: Chrysler Trucks (was New P2K 50' Boxcars in SP...)

Rob & Bev Manley
 

I found a photo of the Chrysler trucks in Steve Hile's Rock Island color guide pp.23 under a converted Pullman Troop car. On pp 33 there is a 40ft6in Pressed Steel car in Pullman Green. Both images show the trucks quite clearly.
I also believe I have bought a b&w from Steve of the same trucks under a 40ft box. I would love to scan it but the photo is hiding and the scanner refuses to talk to Windows XP. Years ago there was an article on modeling these in RMJ (80's-90s).
Rob Manley

----- Original Message -----
From: Russ Strodtz
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 10:36 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Chrysler Trucks (was New P2K 50' Boxcars in SP...)


Would guess that means it was not one of the cars built at Havelock.
They had ASF "Non-Unit" trucks, whatever that means.

Russ
----- Original Message -----
From: Denny Anspach
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 15 February, 2007 10:03
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Chrysler Trucks (was New P2K 50' Boxcars in SP...)

A former USN 50' boxcar in the CSRM collection at Jamestown, CA
rests on Chrysler trucks. Unfortunately, it is in storage and is not
readily available to the casual visitor.

Denny
--
Denny S. Anspach, MD
Sacramento


Re: Accurate STMFC freight car list

rfederle@...
 

In some cases I think the info on the following link may be of use (and it may not be,. You decide).

http://railroad.union.rpi.edu/oldsite/rolling-stock/Kits/Kit-Guide.php

Robert Federle
---- Paul & Bernice Hillman <chris_hillman@msn.com> wrote:

Marty,

Well, maybe a list like that would turn out to be rather small, about
which model cars were very true replicas of the prototypes. But,
perhaps one (or more) of the prototype masters on this list could
produce such a book or booklet for SALE on the subject.

Our fellows like Richard Hendrickson, Ted Culotta, Mike Brock, Tony
Thompson, yourself and many others contibute to such a source, yet
one apparently is not compiled.

Like you stated, models could be listed as, "Close enough", "Dead
on", or "Worth fixing". Then the potential "purchaser" could decide
what route to take with the model.

One case in point. I impetuosly purchased Walthers, Proto 2000 Series;

Mather 40ft Stock Car, GM&O
Mather 40ft boxcar, C&IM
Mather 40ft Boxcar, C&EI

It was late, I'd had a couple of beers, I liked the way the cars
looked and assumed that PROBABLY (?) the manufacturer had done their
prototype research duty. (Or "close" enough)

Now, I have to do some research, as to how close I'd come to
my "guess" at such accuracy.

Also, F&C models at least LOOK very good and seem to have followed
deep prototype research?

Thanks, Paul Hillman


--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Martin McGuirk <mjmcguirk@...> wrote:


Did I miss something?? I can easily list a dozen flat-out
mistakes
I've found on F&C models, as can others. So, when did F&C kits get
an
automatic "given" for accuracy???

Paul, we've toyed around with rating systems for years on this,
and
predecessor freight car, lists . The problem remains the same --
a
rating system is going to be subjective by its very nature. My
"A" (or whatever type of rating is used) model may be your "C" --
which in turn may be the next person's "D". This "relative
accuracy"
is, of course, impacted by the era each individual is modeling.
Take
for example a boxcar painted in NYC/PC Jade Green. the model may
be
dead on accurate for the car, as it was built, (an "A") -- but
does
not include shortened ladders, steel (or no) running boards and
platforms, ACI labels, etc . . . (would that make it a "C"
or "D"????
In any event, not having the all details to match the later patin
scheme (or vice-versa) doesn't mean the model is "wrong," it
simply
needs to be detailed.

It's better to find out what is right or wrong with a particular
model, relative to the body style, and era you model. Then decide
if
it's (1) Close Enough, (2) Dead on, or (3) Something that's worth
"fixing."

I hope my comments make sense.

It's always fun to discuss this sort of thing (anyone remember the
"accuracy label" discussions from 1997 or so . . .??), but I
seriously doubt you're going to get a number of model railroaders
to
arrive at a consensus on how accurate each model is, or isn't.

Marty McGuirk


Re: painting kits

Aidrian Bridgeman-Sutton <smokeandsteam@...>
 

That all depends



If you have a car which is a single solid colour then its usually easier to
spray the whole thing in one go. Simple paper masks can be used for things
like black ends and roofs if these are needed. Trucks can be installed later
there are those who paint everything at one go including trucks, but I
find it much easier to paint and weather the underframe and trucks
separately



Fortunately I dont need to do any fancy multi-coloured schemes, but these
sorts of schemes are where I would think about adding some details after
painting and decals; things like ladders and grabs can really get in the way
of applying masking tape



Aidrian

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
radius158


a beginners type question...have to start somewhere...-in the assembly of
kits such an intermountain railway kit, is it easier to airbrush paint
the deatil parts before attaching them to the body parts, as opposed to
painting the car after parts attached? DG


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.18.0/689 - Release Date: 2/15/2007
5:40 PM



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.18.0/689 - Release Date: 2/15/2007
5:40 PM



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Re: painting kits

Raymond Young
 

Hello,

I assemble the undeframe parts and then airbrush the underfram with the base coat followed by weathering. It is easier to glue unpainted parts. On the superstructure, I usually leave the parts unpainted, unless I have substituted wire grabs. I hand-paint these after assembley. Pre-blackening the wire grabs helps their appearance when the paint flakes off .

Virgil Young
Amarillo, TX.

radius158 <gard158@hotmail.com> wrote:
a beginners type question...have to start somewhere...in the assembly of
kits such an intermountain railway kit, is it easier to airbrush paint
the deatil parts before attaching them to the body parts, as opposed to
painting the car after parts attached? DG


painting kits

radius158
 

a beginners type question...have to start somewhere...in the assembly of
kits such an intermountain railway kit, is it easier to airbrush paint
the deatil parts before attaching them to the body parts, as opposed to
painting the car after parts attached? DG


Re: RPM meet need to know................

Ed Hawkins
 

On Feb 17, 2007, at 3:59 AM, Dave Powell wrote:

Hi,
I know the St. Louis RPM meet has been canceled but what was the date
they were planning on having it? Thanks, Dave Powell
Dave,
The meet has been in August the past three years. I've been told it
should resume in 2008.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins


RPM meet need to know................

Dave Powell <daveydiesel@...>
 

Hi,
I know the St. Louis RPM meet has been canceled but what was the date
they were planning on having it? Thanks, Dave Powell


Re: Chrysler Trucks - Anybody Got A Photo?

Len
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Beckert, Shawn" <shawn.beckert@...>
wrote:

Jim,

I give up - a search of the CB&Q pix at the Fallen Flags web site
produced not a single clean photo of a Chrysler truck, and upon
further study I'm not even sure the truck I posted the shot of is
the truck in question. I did find a photo of a truck with what
looks
like a snubber assembly - but on a wooden car (?).

http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/cbq/cbq-xm0-ags.jpg

Someone else will have to come up with a definitive photo.

Shawn Beckert
Shawn,

I believe I have found a great shot of a 70 ton Chrysler roller
bearing truck. It's listed as #34 in the "trucks" album, in
the "photos" section of the Freight Cars and Crummys group on yahoo.

There are about 60 beautiful, well detailed shots of just about any
type of freight or caboose truck you can think of there as well.
Also many great shots of steam era cars too. However, you must first
join the site, and all of the guys shots are copywrited by himself,
so swipping them for any reason is rather taboo...at least it is to
us honest guys. So when ever I want to look up a particular car or
truck design, I just go in and look at it. As membership there is
free, I completely respect the authors request to copywrites. I'll
attempt to post the groups link.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Vintage-Freight-Cars-N-Crummys

Check it out.

Len Cannor
The Rutland, Route of the Whippet


Re: "S" Brake System Parts

Edwin C. Kirstatter <Q1xaMacArthur1@...>
 

John,
If you can wait until April I can give you the
dimensions of an Air brake hose that I have out
on my Patio. At the present time it is covered
with at least two feet of snow. This is Ohio and
this is winter you know.

As I remember it was a little over 2 inches in Dia. But then
I have two sizes of Air hoses out there. One is for Air brakes
and the other is for a Diesel MU connection.

But you are in luck BTS has these parts in a Brass Kit.
These were the former SouthWind Models parts imported
from Korea many years ago. The part number is 02302.
Unless he has changed numbers again! You get four Angle
cocks and four Gladhands and a piece of tubing to make the
hose from. Last price I seen for these was $4.25. Maybe the
price has come down now that he has moved from sunny
Florida to West By God Virginia?

Edwin C. Kirstatter, B&O Modeler.


Re: Accurate STMFC freight car list

Paul Hillman
 

Marty,

Well, maybe a list like that would turn out to be rather small, about
which model cars were very true replicas of the prototypes. But,
perhaps one (or more) of the prototype masters on this list could
produce such a book or booklet for SALE on the subject.

Our fellows like Richard Hendrickson, Ted Culotta, Mike Brock, Tony
Thompson, yourself and many others contibute to such a source, yet
one apparently is not compiled.

Like you stated, models could be listed as, "Close enough", "Dead
on", or "Worth fixing". Then the potential "purchaser" could decide
what route to take with the model.

One case in point. I impetuosly purchased Walthers, Proto 2000 Series;

Mather 40ft Stock Car, GM&O
Mather 40ft boxcar, C&IM
Mather 40ft Boxcar, C&EI

It was late, I'd had a couple of beers, I liked the way the cars
looked and assumed that PROBABLY (?) the manufacturer had done their
prototype research duty. (Or "close" enough)

Now, I have to do some research, as to how close I'd come to
my "guess" at such accuracy.

Also, F&C models at least LOOK very good and seem to have followed
deep prototype research?

Thanks, Paul Hillman


--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Martin McGuirk <mjmcguirk@...> wrote:


Did I miss something?? I can easily list a dozen flat-out
mistakes
I've found on F&C models, as can others. So, when did F&C kits get
an
automatic "given" for accuracy???

Paul, we've toyed around with rating systems for years on this,
and
predecessor freight car, lists . The problem remains the same --
a
rating system is going to be subjective by its very nature. My
"A" (or whatever type of rating is used) model may be your "C" --
which in turn may be the next person's "D". This "relative
accuracy"
is, of course, impacted by the era each individual is modeling.
Take
for example a boxcar painted in NYC/PC Jade Green. the model may
be
dead on accurate for the car, as it was built, (an "A") -- but
does
not include shortened ladders, steel (or no) running boards and
platforms, ACI labels, etc . . . (would that make it a "C"
or "D"????
In any event, not having the all details to match the later patin
scheme (or vice-versa) doesn't mean the model is "wrong," it
simply
needs to be detailed.

It's better to find out what is right or wrong with a particular
model, relative to the body style, and era you model. Then decide
if
it's (1) Close Enough, (2) Dead on, or (3) Something that's worth
"fixing."

I hope my comments make sense.

It's always fun to discuss this sort of thing (anyone remember the
"accuracy label" discussions from 1997 or so . . .??), but I
seriously doubt you're going to get a number of model railroaders
to
arrive at a consensus on how accurate each model is, or isn't.

Marty McGuirk


More on Hutchins ends

Bob Lucas
 

I've just posted two photos on STMFC... one shows the tapered Hutchins
ends on AC&Y Stores Car #4... one of 150 ex-P&N autoboxes acquired in
1939 which became the AC&Y 2000-series, roster mainstays until the late
60's in tire service. Pressed Steel built the P&N 24,000-series in
September 1925, but 15 identical cars were also home-built by P&N.
Drawings or builder's photos for the P&N 24000-series have yet to
surface. I understand the cars conform to the ARA 1924 standard,
employing the Pratt truss design (forming a "W"). All 165 cars were 50-
ton, 2926 cubic-foot capacity riding on Bettendorf U-section trucks.
The 5' truck center (king pin) location, like the X-29 and another
spotting feature, places the lead edge of the wheel almost at the end
of the car. The Hutchins ends and dry-lading roof, separate ladders,
8'6" interior height and 1½-doors gave them a distinctive appearance.
A second photo from Tom Fetters is Piedmont & Northern publicity
photo. P&N freight motor No. 5602 poses near Greenville with a full
train of newer single-sheathed boxcars. The first three are the P&N
12000-series single-door cars, but thereafter are the P&N 24000-series
1½-door auto cars later acquired by the AC&Y. Bob Lucas

124101 - 124120 of 184354